Emergency SOS via Satellite Saves Students Trapped in Utah Canyon

[monstermash]

Emergency satellite 911 is not a mandated service. If you don’t pay your cell bill your phone will be unable to function as normal. Its mandated e911 services are available. There’s no mandate for e-sat 911. You want it after two years pay for it. Just like other providers, eg Garmin who charge for the service.

In the US, most modern cell phones, even without any cell services attached, will let you dial 911, using whatever cell service is available from that phone.

You can prove this to yourself by removing the SIM card (if it has a physical sim) and dialing 911.

I don't know if that is a mandated feature, or if it is voluntary.

 

[T_a_rogers]

Helpful reminder: any iPhone can be made to work with Globalstar and Apple should roll out this allegedly lifesaving technology to older iPhones.

This is incorrect. The linked article was entirely guesswork from a blogger who doesn’t understand basic communication protocols. His initial article where he claims this will work on all phones (with no sound technical explanation, mind you) was written before the iPhone 14 was even announced.

Older iPhones don’t have the right antenna design and likely the right chipset to communicate with satellites. It’s really that simple.

 

[steve09090]

In the US, most modern cell phones, even without any cell services attached, will let you dial 911, using whatever cell service is available from that phone.

You can prove this to yourself by removing the SIM card (if it has a physical sim) and dialing 911.

I don't know if that is a mandated feature, or if it is voluntary.

It’s that way in Australia too. Or at least, you need to be able to be connected to a service even if it’s not your own service. Although we call 000, but anyone, anywhere can call 112 (international number).

 

[Skyscraperfan]

Emergency satellite 911 is not a mandated service. If you don’t pay your cell bill your phone will be unable to function as normal. Its mandated e911 services are available. There’s no mandate for e-sat 911. You want it after two years pay for it. Just like other providers, eg Garmin who charge for the service.

There may be no law for emergency via satellite, because it is very new. However in an emergency you always have to help first and later you may ask for compensation. For example if someone has a wound and may bleed out, you may have to take your own shirt to stop the bleeding. Later you can demand compensation for the ruined shirt.

It may depend on if it would technically be possible to use that services spontaneously or if any preparations would be needed, that are only done when you pay for the service.

Just imagine a car having more air bags than the mandatory ones in front of the drivers seats. Wouldn't it be quite a scandal if the additional air bags would only engage if the owner has an extra subscription to use them? Imagine an accident happens and those extra air bags will not engage because the person did not have that subscription and as a consequence that person dies. That is basically what Apple is planning. They should really include the service in the price of their very expensive smartphones.

It would be okay if their were two models. One that has the hardware for satellite emergency and one that does not. If the hardware is not included, it can't work of course. If the hardware is included and just refuses to save a life, because the owner had not paid, that is very problematic at least. It would be like the included air bag that does not engage.

 

[I7guy]

There may be no law for emergency via satellite, because it is very new. However in an emergency you always have to help first and later you may ask for compensation. For example if someone has a wound and may bleed out, you may have to take your own shirt to stop the bleeding. Later you can demand compensation for the ruined shirt.

It may depend on if it would technically be possible to use that services spontaneously or if any preparations would be needed, that are only done when you pay for the service.

Just imagine a car having more air bags than the mandatory ones in front of the drivers seats. Wouldn't it be quite a scandal if the additional air bags would only engage if the owner has an extra subscription to use them? Imagine an accident happens and those extra air bags will not engage because the person did not have that subscription and as a consequence that person dies. That is basically what Apple is planning. They should really include the service in the price of their very expensive smartphones.

It would be okay if their were two models. One that has the hardware for satellite emergency and one that does not. If the hardware is not included, it can't work of course. If the hardware is included and just refuses to save a life, because the owner had not paid, that is very problematic at least. It would be like the included air bag that does not engage.

All these hypotheticals are all well and good. I’m reasonable sure apple has done its legal homework on this and are in solid footing. Problematic or not it’s on the owners. Just like if someone stopped paying their cell phone bills and needed to call their family.

The air bag is a bad analogy because you paid for that upfront for life.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

The air bag is a bad analogy because you paid for that upfront for life.

Actually some cars already have built in parts that can only be activated with a subscription. For example the seat heatings in some BMW models. Mercedes wants an annual subscription fee of $1200 per year for enabling the maximum acceleration. Just imagine a car company did the same for the additional airbags that are not mandatory by law. That could be the future. Car companies love subscriptions, because they mean a continuous revenue stream for them.

 

[poorcody]

There may be no law for emergency via satellite, because it is very new. However in an emergency you always have to help first and later you may ask for compensation. For example if someone has a wound and may bleed out, you may have to take your own shirt to stop the bleeding. Later you can demand compensation for the ruined shirt.

I've had an inReach satellite communicator for about nine years. If you don't pay for service, you cannot call for help even in an emergency. It has always been that way.

911 for phones with no service is mandated by federal law (US). No such law for satellite communicators. I suspect the problem for companies which maintain the satellites -- I assume an expensive undertaking -- is most people would probably not buy service and just buy the device to call 911, and there wouldn't be enough revenue to afford to keep the network up.

 

[I7guy]

Actually some cars already have built in parts that can only be activated with a subscription. For example the seat heatings in some BMW models. Mercedes wants an annual subscription fee of $1200 per year for enabling the maximum acceleration. Just imagine a car company did the same for the additional airbags that are not mandatory by law. That could be the future. Car companies love subscriptions, because they mean a continuous revenue stream for them.

Sure, one pays for the optional features they want. If one wants to pay for additional safety above and beyond mandated requirements I say go for it. In the event of a crash those safety features will be turned off. It’s up to the customer to decide - but the customer probably wouldn’t win a lawsuit against the manufacturer.

In the case of a heated seat or CarPlay it’s neither here nor there to this discussion. I mean Netflix does this exactly. You can watch all content on Netflix with a basic sub but if you want 4K you have to pay extra.

Unless things change in 2025, if you want e-sat 911 you will have to remember to PAY. (Ie get out your credit card because apple will remind you)

 

[steve09090]

Actually some cars already have built in parts that can only be activated with a subscription. For example the seat heatings in some BMW models. Mercedes wants an annual subscription fee of $1200 per year for enabling the maximum acceleration. Just imagine a car company did the same for the additional airbags that are not mandatory by law. That could be the future. Car companies love subscriptions, because they mean a continuous revenue stream for them.

Your point is taken, but those examples are luxury items to be fair. I doubt we’ll see subscription for safety features, but who knows. If there’s a buck in it.

 

[Skyscraperfan]

I doubt we’ll see subscription for safety features, but who knows.

But that is exactly what Apple plans. A subscription for a safety feature.

My point is: We as private citizens have to help people in danger. If we do not do that, we could even land in jail.

It is the superhero problem. Imagine you would be Superman and you could stop all kinds of tragedies from happening. Would you be morally obligated to do that? Imagine you are Superman and you are the only one who could stop that giant meteor on collision course with earth. Would you be required to do that?

 

[steve09090]

But that is exactly what Apple plans. A subscription for a safety feature.

My point is: We as private citizens have to help people in danger. If we do not do that, we could even land in jail.

It is the superhero problem. Imagine you would be Superman and you could stop all kinds of tragedies from happening. Would you be morally obligated to do that? Imagine you are Superman and you are the only one who could stop that giant meteor on collision course with earth. Would you be required to do that?

No it’s not. It’s a deal struck with Globalstar when Apple paid $450m to help set it up. It’s still a service requiring people to pay Globalstar. The fact people can get it for 2 years is a deal Apple was able to make.

 

[SteveJUAE]

No it’s not. It’s a deal struck with Globalstar when Apple paid $450m to help set it up. It’s still a service requiring people to pay Globalstar. The fact people can get it for 2 years is a deal Apple was able to make.

As we have 0 details of how it may work in 2 years time it may well be the case of 3 price tiers for example

1 Annual subscription $85
2 A Month coverage $45 ( for occasional trips)
3 Out of subscription service $200

This way no one is denied access, just you pick your cost exposure like insurance

Just my guess FWIW

 

[swingerofbirch]

Yay Apple! Now we just need week long battery life / battery innovation (true innovation).

don’t be so judgmental. Some people enjoy taking risks. “A ship is always safe at shore, but that’s not what it’s meant for.” These types of adventures are what some people find meaning and life fulfillment from. Does that mean make a ton of stupid decisions? No. But these kids took a risk and it was dangerous. Does a NASCAR driver stop driving when they wreck? What about athletes when they get severely injured but recover fully? For some people, the journey and reward is greater than the risk.

In this case the people who did these stupid stunts are endorsing continuing to do them with the caveat that people who indulge bring a satellite phone like Apple's knowing they will be taken care of by the largesse of publicly funded SAR (search and rescue). I think there is a parallel to draw with the EMS case in that each is expanding the use of public resources—one by making spurious calls and the other by expanding reckless behavior with a safety net. There are good use case scenarios for this technology, but it should be not used to encourage this type of behavior nor to take away from the time and public resources, when the incidents can be avoided.

Go and do something stupid because you'll have a phone with you to use up limited public resources is the wrong message that these students are sending and that MacRumors is unquestioningly amplifying.

 

[monstermash]

Your point is taken, but those examples are luxury items to be fair. I doubt we’ll see subscription for safety features, but who knows. If there’s a buck in it.

If anything is a luxury item, it's a personal communicator that lets you communicate voice and data pretty much instantly to virtually anyone else on the planet.

 

[BurgDog]

My point is: We as private citizens have to help people in danger. If we do not do that, we could even land in jail.

In the US we have no legal obligation to do anything to help any person in danger unless you caused the situation in the first place. Many people will of their own free-will if it doesn't endanger themselves, but that is a personal choice, not a legal imperative.

 

[monstermash]

In the US we have no legal obligation to do anything to help any person in danger unless you caused the situation in the first place. Many people will of their own free-will if it doesn't endanger themselves, but that is a personal choice, not a legal imperative.

Not only that, SCOTUS has ruled that the police have no duty to protect you, DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (1989).

In the 1981 case Warren v. District of Columbia, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that police have a general "public duty," but that "no specific legal duty exists" unless there is a special relationship between an officer and an individual, such as a person in custody.

In 2005'sCastle Rock v. Gonzales, a woman sued the police for failing to protect her from her husband after he violated a restraining order and abducted and killed their three children. Justices said the police had no such duty.

Most recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld a lower court ruling that police could not be held liable for failing to protect students in the 2018 shooting that claimed 17 lives at Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

If the POLICE have no duty to help you, I sure don't.

 

[Vref]

…The feature is free to use for two years, and Apple has not yet provided detail on how much it will cost going forward.

…

 

[Skyscraperfan]

In the US we have no legal obligation to do anything to help any person in danger unless you caused the situation in the first place. Many people will of their own free-will if it doesn't endanger themselves, but that is a personal choice, not a legal imperative.

That is quite a strange society. So you can watch someone die who could be saved with your help? In Germany you even have to help if somebody is attacked by another person. Of course you do not have to put yourself in danger, but you have call the police or get other help. That part goes a little too far even for my taste, because it puts part of the blame for a crime on another person.

We even have a law that requires you to let strangers into your home if they urgently require a toilet. That is only theoretical though. I never heard of someone really doing that and I would certainly not let strangers into my home.

 

[Vref]

That is quite a strange society. So you can watch someone die who could be saved with your help? In Germany you even have to help if somebody is attacked by another person. Of course you do not have to put yourself in danger, but you have call the police or get other help. That part goes a little too far even for my taste, because it puts part of the blame for a crime on another person.

We even have a law that requires you to let strangers into your home if they urgently require a toilet. That is only theoretical though. I never heard of someone really doing that and I would certainly not let strangers into my home.

Is the scene safe?

Can’t save anyone if you’re dead


The police? Lol, very useless, and for many they are more of a nuisance, they also have no legal duty to protect you

Police Have No Duty to Protect You, Federal Court Affirms Yet Again | Mises Institute

The "social contract" is a one-way street. You pay your taxes or go to jail. In return, the government may or may not provide some of those services you

mises.org

As always it’s best to mentally be prepared to self-rescue

One thing I like with that feature is it notifies individuals you can select, in many instances I trust my friends and colleagues to save my butt over the “professionals” though many of my friends qualify for that title too lol

 

[steve09090]

That is quite a strange society. So you can watch someone die who could be saved with your help? In Germany you even have to help if somebody is attacked by another person. Of course you do not have to put yourself in danger, but you have call the police or get other help. That part goes a little too far even for my taste, because it puts part of the blame for a crime on another person.

We even have a law that requires you to let strangers into your home if they urgently require a toilet. That is only theoretical though. I never heard of someone really doing that and I would certainly not let strangers into my home.

In Australia (and I suspect the UK where most of our Common Law originates) there is a duty to help as the Common Law definition of 'an act' includes an "act or Omission of an act, that causes harm'. So if you can reasonably help, you must.

The same applies to all people, including police. However, police must always act reasonably and in accordance with certain principles.